SHORT NOTE
PATNA HIGH COURT
Arvind Srivastava and Sunil Dutta Mishra, JJ.
Dharam Mahato and Anr. – Appellants
versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.237 of 1996
Decided on 22.12.2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder – Life sentence – Law does not permit Courts to punish accused on the basis of suspicion alone – Greater the felony stricter the degree of proof.
(2) Delay in lodging F.I.R. corrodes credibility of prosecution story.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 201 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374 – Murder and disappearance of evidence – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – There were no eye-witness to incident – Burden is always on prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legally admissible evidences – Law does not permit Courts to punish accused on the basis of suspicion alone – Greater the felony stricter the degree of proof – Prosecution witnesses failed to prove material fact that deceased was killed – Delay in lodging F.I.R. has not been properly explained by informant and same creates doubt about truthfulness of prosecution case – Prosecution has failed to establish their guilt by adducing clear, cogent, trustworthy and clinching evidence – Appellate court is empowered to reappreciate entire evidence on record for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether accused persons or any of them had committed any offence or not – If impugned judgment and order is ultimately found to be clearly unreasonable and perverse, then such judgment and order can be set aside by appellate court – Appellants acquitted of charges levelled against them.

Held: The appellate court is empowered to reappreciate the entire evidence on record for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the accused persons or any of them had committed any offence or not and if the impugned judgment and order is ultimately found to be clearly unreasonable and perverse, then such judgment and order can be set aside by the appellate court.

From analysis of the aforesaid evidence of witnesses it is clear that there were no eye-witness to the incident and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. It is settled principle of law that an accused can be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence provided the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the complete chain of events and circumstances which definitely points towards the involvement and guilty of the suspect or accused as the case may be.

It is well settled that the burden is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legally admissible evidences. The law does not permit the Courts to punish the accused on the basis of suspicion alone. It is also settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that greater the felony the stricter the degree of proof.

The Investigating Officer (PW-6) has admitted that Kapil Deo Prasad (PW-1) had stated that he came to know that Nirmala Devi died due to Cholera and after her death villagers had cremated the dead body of the deceased. He also admitted that Surendra Prasad and Amar Nath Raut had stated that Nirmala Devi had died due to Diarrhoea and Cholera. He also admitted that Deputy Superintendent of Police in his supervision report also stated that villagers told that Nirmala Devi died due to Diarrhoea and Cholera. The prosecution witnesses failed to prove the material fact that deceased was killed. On the other hand, the defence witnesses have consistently deposed and proved that the deceased died due to Diarrhoea and Cholera. The trial Court failed to appreciate that the prosecution failed to prove motive of the offence and reliance of letter (Ext.-3) which was produced first time in trial cannot corroborate the motive when the crime has itself not proved.

The delay in lodging the F.I.R. corrodes the credibility of the prosecution story. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments held that delay in lodging the F.I.R. creates a doubt, if the said delay is not properly explained. Delay in lodging F.I.R. more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an after thought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt of its veracity. In the present case, after perusing the testimony of prosecution witnesses, this Court finds that delay in lodging F.I.R. has not been properly explained by the informant and the same creates doubt about the truthfulness of prosecution case.

In the light of this discussion, the appellants/convicted accused are certainly entitled for benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to establish their guilt by adducing clear, cogent, trustworthy and clinching evidence. In the result, this appeal deserves to be allowed and is allowed with the following orders: –

I. The appeal is allowed.

II. The impugned judgment and order dated 31.05.1996 passed in Sessions Trial No. 96 of 1995, by the learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah thereby convicting the appellants/ convicted accused and sentencing them, accordingly, is set aside.

III. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them and held to be proved against them by the learned trial Court. Appellants who are on bail are discharged from their liability of their respective bail bonds.

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 154 – FIR – Delay in lodging F.I.R. corrodes credibility of prosecution story – Delay in lodging F.I.R. creates a doubt, if delay is not properly explained – Delay in lodging F.I.R. more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration which is a creature of afterthought – Delayed report not only gets bereft of advantage of spontaneity, danger of introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations also creeps in casting serious doubt of its veracity.

Held: The delay in lodging the F.I.R. corrodes the credibility of the prosecution story. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments held that delay in lodging the F.I.R. creates a doubt, if the said delay is not properly explained. Delay in lodging F.I.R. more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an after thought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt of its veracity. In the present case, after perusing the testimony of prosecution witnesses, this Court finds that delay in lodging F.I.R. has not been properly explained by the informant and the same creates doubt about the truthfulness of prosecution case. (Para 44)

Result: Appeal allowed.